Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/70477
|
| Title: | 美國聯邦實驗室之合作研究暨發展協議（CRADA）制度之探討——兼論我國科學技術基本法之補充與修訂 |
| Other Titles: | A Study on the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement of U.S. Federal Laboratories —A Model for the Revision of the Basic Law of Taiwan’s Science and Technology |
| Authors: | 王偉霖
Wang, Wei-Lin |
| Contributors: | 智財所 |
| Keywords: | 史蒂芬生-懷德勒科技創新法案;技術移轉;合作研究;拜杜法案
CRADA;The Stevenson-Wydler act;Technology transfer;Cooperative;The Bayh-Dole act |
| Date: | 2010.12 |
| Issue Date: | 2014-10-06 17:19:09 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 美國於一九八六年聯邦技術移轉法案中（Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986），修正「史蒂芬生－懷德勒科技創新法案」（The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980），增加「合作研究暨發展協議」（Cooperative Research and DevelopmentAgreements，以下簡稱CRADA）的重要制度，建立美國「聯邦實驗室」與私人企業及學術機構間共同合作研究之法律基礎，並在後續立法中，擴大CRADA的適用範圍，使得美國七百多間聯邦實驗室所構成之研究體系得透過本制度，有效地將技術移轉給民間。該法通過迄今，確實促成不少公私部門合作研究之案例。一般而言，政府係以兩種方式來主導國家的創新研究，其一是政府以出資、補助或委託研究的方式，屬「政府資助」（government funds）模式，以美國拜杜法案（the Bayh-Dole Act）為代表。其二為「政府與民間合作研究模式」（cooperation between federal government and private sectors），即美國法上的CRADA制度，係指以聯邦實驗室（federal laboratories）為主體，與民間合作所從事之技術「共同合作開發」，政府並非以資金贊助研究的方式，而是提供實驗室本身之場所、人員或設備，合作締約方（contractor）的義務乃是提供資金或其他資源，與聯邦實驗室共同合作從事研究。兩個法律體系依照不同主體、合作模式與權益歸屬，各自有不同的設計與規定。我國於一九九八年十二月，仿效美國拜杜法案通過科學技術基本法。科學技術基本法與拜杜法案精神一致，均屬政府資助模式的立法。「政府與民間合作研究」模式在我國現行制度下僅存於少數政府機關，如中研院等的內部法規（如中央研究院研究成果發展管理要點第八點），及少數機關的行政慣例中。雖然我國已有學界與產業界的產學合作模式，然類似CRADA，由民間出資、政府實驗室進行研究的合作模式可說尚未有法律位階的法源依據。筆者主張引進美國的合作研究模式，並制訂相關配套措施，一來可解決欠缺法律授權之疑義，二來對我國政府實驗室資源的開放給民間利用，提供詳盡完善的法律規範。惟同時提醒合作研究制度可能產生的爭議並提出防免建議，以取其益而去其弊，而提升我國的研究能量並促進研究成果的商品化。
In 1986, the Congress of the United States passed the Federal Technology Transfer Act to amend the original Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, and created the “Cooperative Research and Development Agreements” (CRADA). Under the CRADA system, federal laboratories provide equipment and/or personnel, while cooperating contractors provide funding to jointly develop certain types of technology. After the adoption of CRADA, the cooperation between federal labs and private industries has become more interactive, and many successful inventions have been made.In contrast to the Bayh-Dole Act model, under which the government provides funding for universities and private industries, under the CRADA model, the government (federal labs) provides equipment, sites, and/or personnel, instead of funding, for contractors. Consequently, the ownership of intellectual property rights in relation to research results under the two systems shall be different as well.Taiwan mimics the system of the United States and passed the Science and Technology Basic Act at the end of 1990. Nonetheless, under the Science and Technology Basic Act, only the “Bayh-Dole Act system”exists with no CRADA system in place. This article introduces the CRADA system, including relevant statistics of CRADA, and pros and cons of the CRADA system as discussed by U.S. scholars. This article also argues that Taiwan needs to amend the Science and Technology Basic Act in order to adopt the CRADA system, while it also needs to adopt certain precautionary measures to prevent conflicts of interest and unfairness to small companies in the light of criticism by U.S. scholars directed against CRADA. |
| Relation: | 法學評論 , 118, 331-394 |
| Data Type: | article |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 期刊論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 331-394.pdf | 1141Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 659 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
